Gyroscopic Investing

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style ... 17616.html

They are saying that they will reprogram the cancer cells back to normal ones. Very encouraging if true.

Reub wrote:http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style ... 17616.html

They are saying that they will reprogram the cancer cells back to normal ones. Very encouraging if true.

Cancer cells are immortal cells. What this means is they're also senescent, i.e. at the end of their life and haven't been properly cleared from the body. That goes hand in hand with the decreasing immune system function as one ages. So you see, cancer is not a "virus" per se, it is a malfunctioning immune system.

In the meantime, you can clear out senescent cells from the body with quercetin and tocotrienols to prevent them from going cancerific.

MachineGhost wrote:

Reub wrote:http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style ... 17616.html

They are saying that they will reprogram the cancer cells back to normal ones. Very encouraging if true.

Cancer cells are immortal cells. What this means is they're also senescent, i.e. at the end of their life and haven't been properly cleared from the body. That goes hand in hand with the decreasing immune system function as one ages. So you see, cancer is not a "virus" per se, it is a malfunctioning immune system.

In the meantime, you can clear out senescent cells from the body with quercetin and tocotrienols to prevent them from going cancerific.

How can cancer cells be both immortal and at the end of their life?

I realized after getting in bed that what I wrote was wrong, but thanks for catching it. I should know better to write posts late at night!!!

So forget what I said. Senile cells clog up the body and can contribute to cancerific cells, but cancerific cells have already evaded the senescence death sentence (apoptosis). One does not necessarily follow the other in a sequential order... correlation is not causation. So the operative word here is "modulate apoptosis", i.e. get rid of senescent senile cells and turn apoptosis back on in cancerific.

Maybe I'm just too thick to see the obvious, but how is cancer a computational problem? Is there an actual plan here, or does Boy Wonder Gates simply imagine that 100 twenty-somethings who point and click at the speed of light can solve anything?

Maddy wrote:Maybe I'm just too thick to see the obvious, but how is cancer a computational problem? Is there an actual plan here, or does Boy Wonder Gates simply imagine that 100 twenty-somethings who point and click at the speed of light can solve anything?

Boy Wonder Gates is no longer involved in Microsoft and hasn't been for eight years (it got too big to manage and no one listened to him anymore.)

So what Microsoft really means is they're going to attempt to use the next generation of neural networks (called deep learning) and throw everything but the kitchen sink into it and see what comes out the other end. My cynical attitude is it will be GIGO and the lamestream literature is not exact replete with cancer cures of the alternative kind. Still, the merging of alternative and lamestream medicine has to start to converge sometime and this seems like a good nexus as any. A machine is not biased nor worried about career risk, social acceptance, etc..

MachineGhost wrote:

Maddy wrote:Maybe I'm just too thick to see the obvious, but how is cancer a computational problem? Is there an actual plan here, or does Boy Wonder Gates simply imagine that 100 twenty-somethings who point and click at the speed of light can solve anything?

Boy Wonder Gates is no longer involved in Microsoft and hasn't been for eight years (it got too big to manage and no one listened to him anymore.)

So what Microsoft really means is they're going to attempt to use the next generation of neural networks (called deep learning) and throw everything but the kitchen sink into it and see what comes out the other end. My cynical attitude is it will be GIGO and the lamestream literature is not exact replete with cancer cures of the alternative kind. Still, the merging of alternative and lamestream medicine has to start to converge sometime and this seems like a good nexus as any. A machine is not biased nor worried about career risk, social acceptance, etc..

AI fueled robots do not get cancer. When all of us humans die, what we currently know as cancer is cured. Just depends on whether you look at it from the perspective of the human, or the robot.

MachineGhost wrote:I realized after getting in bed that what I wrote was wrong, but thanks for catching it. I should know better to write posts late at night!!!

So forget what I said. Senile cells clog up the body and can contribute to cancerific cells, but cancerific cells have already evaded the senescence death sentence (apoptosis). One does not necessarily follow the other in a sequential order... correlation is not causation. So the operative word here is "modulate apoptosis", i.e. get rid of senescent senile cells and turn apoptosis back on in cancerific.

Thanks. That clears it all up.

Maddy wrote:Maybe I'm just too thick to see the obvious, but how is cancer a computational problem? Is there an actual plan here, or does Boy Wonder Gates simply imagine that 100 twenty-somethings who point and click at the speed of light can solve anything?

If he thinks he can cure cancer and is spending the money the rest of us gave him for his shitty software instead of asking for more through the government then why complain? Sounds like a very noble idea to me. Even if he doesn't cure cancer, the research should yield some benefits.